Monday Scenes from the Democratic Convention (through 7:10 pm EDT)

Here are some scenes from the convention; many have been reported elsewhere, but fwiw here’s my take:

Friday night the DNC held two huge parties to welcome delegates. The Berners were proudly displaying Bernie bling, Hillary fans much less so. Things were peaceful.

The Bernie meeting at 12:30 Monday reflected where many delegates are: angry and sad that Bernie is not the nominee–when he told us to elect Hillary to stop Trump, the room booed. There is no Trump love among any of the delegates I’ve met here, just no Hillary love either.

Bernie made some key points:

By overwhelmingly winning the youth vote, he has set the agenda for the future of the Democratic Party. In addition, five state parties are now controlled by Berniecrats. And the fight for social, economic, racial, and environmental justice continues. The convention is not the apocalypse; the fight to transform this country continues.

Many reporters have asked me if I and other Bernie delegates were feeling unified. Not much, I tell them, even the many of us who do not want Trump elected, and are willing to act unified in the end. Then the reporters ask: Why?

I say: because the progressives are sick and tired of being told we have nowhere to go, and we have to put up and shut up. Reporters: Oh, but what don’t you like about Hillary? I say: Bernie’s campaign was about issues, and Hillary hasn’t adopted key positions, like Stopping the TPP.

Oh, but she opposes it! The reporters say. Tim Kaine too! And I counter: Really? Then why wouldn’t the platform committee adopt a commitment to not send it to the Congress? Isn’t that what opposition means? Here’s what we think is happening: Clinton and Kaine oppose while President Obama tries to pass it in lame duck. If he succeeds–and we Berniecrats will do everything we can to stop the TPP–then Clinton & Kaine’s opposition is cheap. If he fails, and TPP becomes Clinton’s to deal with. We bet she will “fix” something, and then support it. So their “opposition” is meaningless to us.

This feeling was reflected by the loud Stop the TPP actions during the Monday night convention, which targeted in part the platform.

As I walked in to the WFC, another reporter asked me about a message Bernie sent to all of us delegates, in which he explicitly asked us not to protest on the floor. Bernie said:

“I would ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind of protest or demonstration on the convention floor.”  He made clear exactly what he was talking about. His email said:

“Our credibility as a movement will be damaged by booing, turning of backs, walking out or other similar displays. That’s what the corporate media wants. That’s what Donald Trump wants. But that’s not what will expand the progressive movement in this country.”

The reporter asked me if Bernie’s delegates would listen to him. I said, well, I don’t speak for all delegates. What people need to understand is that Bernie inspired people about issues; people who never participated in the process before opted in because they were passionate about the issues. Some Bernie delegates are activists first, delegates second. More delegates will take direction from Bernie. And the boos began, every time someone called for Hillary to be elected President. But most delegates were not booing.

During Monday night, the DNC put up little videos about various topics; the one about how Republicans took over Congress by gerrymandering, while largely true, was maddening because really, the DNC simply failed. The Rs had opponents…


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Politics on by .

About #SlayTheSmaugs

#SlayTheSmaugs is an elected Bernie delegate in Philly. #STS believes that the billionaire class are Smaugs (the greed incarnate dragon of The Hobbit), immorally hoarding wealth for no reason beyond ego gratification. To "Slay" the Smaugs, we need a confiscatory wealth tax, stronger democratic institutions to impose it, and a shared moral agreement that #GreedIsEvil to justify it.


  1. Archie

    #SlayTheSmaugs speaks for (him/her)self. There cannot be enough disrespect and derision directed toward the DNC and Clinton/Kaine at this convention. Fuck them.

    1. Dave

      Our attitude exactly. After working our ass off for Bernie in California, seeing the vote fraud by our Secretary of State, who also worked directly for Hillary, the lies, the tricks, the expectation that we will all line up for “unity”, our response to the DNC is

      A. You will never get another cent out of us. (You will however, get all your mailers back at your postage paid cost, maybe even a few lead tire weights in the envelope to cost you at least several dollars in postage).

      B. We will vote for Jill Stein or Trump.

      C. We will tell every high school student we work with that the Democratic Party used to represent us through the New Deal, but that it now represents financial tapeworms who are seeking ways to lay their eggs in the intestines of young people.

      D. We will work to reform the Green Party and start an American Populist Party, a real Second Political Party in America.

  2. Steve C

    The Republicans hadn’t gerrymandered yet in 2010. That one’s on the Democrats. But the Ds were high minded and serious about it so it’s all good.

    Republicans gerrymandered subsequently only because the Democrats handed it to them on a silver platter in 2010.

    1. Uahsenaa

      I do get a kick out of how people’s historical memory always only seems to go back so far. I don’t particularly like Howard Dean, but the Dems were successful in 2006 and 2008 due in large part to his congressional strategy. He was sacked once Obama took office, his organizations disappeared, then lo and behold, the Dems lost Congress in 2010 as well as a number of state houses and governorships. These proceeded to gerrymander the hell out of their states after the census.

      So, you’re right, it wasn’t just the Republicans. Dems threw a won match.

      1. voteforno6

        Well, they quickly corrected that mistake, and dumped the useless hack who was DNC chair in 2010. Whatever happened to that guy?

        1. cwaltz

          He failed upward, just like that feckless SoS that didn’t understand how classified data worked.

          If you pick the right parents you too can fail upward.

        2. SpringTexan


          one thing I really enjoy is how my fellow Bernie supporters have some clue as to what is going on . . .

      2. Steve C

        They solved the home foreclosure problem by screwing homeowners, prioritized controlling spending over putting people back to work and fetishized bipartisanship. That’s also how they threw 2010.

        But Tim Kaine deserves special scorn. Not the vice presidency.

        1. cwaltz

          Well to be fair, Hillary Clinton was extremely careless and the DNC is all for promoting her too.

          Apparently, they are going with the making government work more like the upper echelons of the business community already

          1. nowhere

            Maybe they can sell the country to Verizon for a few billion after stuffing a few hundred million into their own pockets.

        2. PH

          I agree.

          But the roots of those policy decisions were not profound analysis. Just reflex. The prevailing view on the formula for winning elections.

          In the weird echo chamber of the political world, losing general elections do not break the groupthink. The prospect of losing primaries may move some people, but in general the focus is on crushing challengers.

          Only winning general elections can alter the culture.

          Not enough by itself. But it is the path forward, in my view.

  3. Buttinsky

    “I would ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind of protest or demonstration on the convention floor…. Our credibility as a movement will be damaged by booing, turning of backs, walking out or other similar displays. That’s what the corporate media wants. That’s what Donald Trump wants. But that’s not what will expand the progressive movement in this country.”

    Sheepdogging. Fuck Bernie.

    1. seabos84

      the corp-0-RAT media is going to lie about everything anyway. While I don’t share the belief / perspective Bernie was sheepdogging, this kind of quivering, diaper wetting fear is the SOS that the dim-0-crap$ use to say nothing about swiftboats or willie horton or rich pig ass kissing crap tax policy or … pretty much everything these last 30++ years.

      1. political economist

        Yes, Bernie is wrong now to support Clinton but this what he said he would do from the get-go. So, no surprise… just disappointment. His message was always weak when it came to criticizing Democrats; that was the most frustrating part of his campaign and a good part of why he did not do better. He was right to call for primary opposition to Obama in 2012 and wrong to not criticizing him point-by-point for almost everything he did while President. ( If your legacy is the ACA, it’s pretty much the domestic equivalent of Bush’s Iraq War.)
        So, I won’t waste my time criticizing Bernie for doing what he said he would do. But, I will ignore him when he is wrong. That’s why I will continue the political revolution “(political” in the narrow US sense of the word) by working/voting for the Green Party and Jill Stein for President.

    2. hunkerdown

      He’s got his interests. We’ve got ours. Either they are beginning to diverge, or Bernie has a rather different idea of what makes a “credible” [to whom?] movement than we do.

      1. Patricia

        Yep. When facing rampant corruption, silent courtesy is acquiescence.

        Maybe Bernie needs politeness to stay involved in a hostile gov’t; we are not, do not, will not.

      2. James Levy

        One legitimate question is, do you look like a bunch of buffoons, babies, and sore losers to those middle Americans people around here are always saying we’ve got to appeal to? Certainly disorganization and “antics” turned off a lot of those middle Americans in 1972 when the convention went kablooey, and I don’t think that helped “the movement” very much. Unless you want to argue that those steely proles were all brainwashed back then, you’ve got to analyze what alienated them from the closest thing we’ve had to a Leftist insurgency since Debs poled over a million votes in 1912.

        I don’t know how this looks in the homes of millions of working class and poor people around the country. I don’t know if they are pumping their fists in support or turning the channel in disgust. And since I don’t know, I’m not going to make any pronouncements on the subject or tell everyone what average people think. Best we take the time to find out.

        1. zapster

          After blindingly obvious election fraud? This sounds more like victim-blaming, to me.

          1. redleg

            The fraud, IMO, justifies any and every kind of nonviolent protest.
            Every last thing the establishment does should be met with unambiguous vocal protest.
            I hope someone has Dear Leader Bill’s saxophone so the appropriate soundtrack of “yakety sax” can echo through the halls of this Benny Hill Hillary and Bill show.

          2. inode_buddha

            Yet the fraud is NOT blindingly obvious to everyone, because they are getting all their info from corporate mainstream media. Said media will be broadcasting this which is why we have to appear civil even if the DNC doesn’t deserve it.

            Lets dissapoint the powers that be by not giving them *anything* to point at.

              1. Donald

                I’ve already seen someone on a comment thread elsewhere shocked that Bernie supporters booked Elijah Cummings (because he’s black). I refuse to watch the conventions, so I googled and sure enough, the press stories I found reported it as the Sanders movement not able to reach out to black people, as shown by their booing of Cummings.

                This stuff drives me nuts. Issues just get trampled underfoot.

                1. aab

                  I didn’t watch anything today. But it seems obviously calculated with Brazile and Fudge that Clinton was putting up black women as shields, to try to silence and then further stigmatize the protesters.

                  Which is disgusting, on her part, and on their part for being complicit. I am middle-aged white woman, and the identitarian bullshit of the Clintonian Democratic Party forces me to constantly mention that fact. But it should be irrelevant in this context. I am way behind here, but in case you haven’t covered it:

                  It is an outright lie that Bernie voters are white and privileged, and and outright lie that marginalized citizens will be significantly safer under Clinton rather than Trump. There were reports from the floor tonight from minority Bernie delegates of horribly racist behavior from the Clinton delegates, as we saw previously at various Clinton gatherings and state conventions.

                  I have traveled so far in this process that I now look forward to seeing the party burn, since it refuses to bern. And it will. Can she steal Ohio with Kasich’s help? Maybe. But I don’t think there are enough bankster Republican governors willing to give up destroying the Democratic Party completely when it is in their grasp. I guess we’ll see.

                  1. savedbyirony

                    Yes, living in Ohio I’ve been wondering if Kasich and Husted (the SoS) would be willing to swing their impressive voting suppression resources to her cause, but it’s hard to ignore just how much Kasich hates Trump. On the other hand, Kasich is a Koch pol so if they really do favor Clinton, the prodigious Ohio election fixing machine will probably do her a solid (for a price).

                2. SpringTexan

                  Yes they want to talk about anything but issues. That’s why the line of the Sanders speech about all the stuff the press talks about INSTEAD of issues got such huge applause.

        2. Archie

          1972 James? The days of the silent majority and American peak oil?! I’m surprised you didn’t cite Agnew’s nattering nabobs of negativity!! This is not 1972. We are 40+ years down the neoliberal rabbit hole. Many people are suffering, but not all. Those suffering need a lot of help from those that are not suffering as much, or at all. That’s what is going down in 2016. In my view, it is less about Trump v Clinton and more about neoliberalism v the common good. Both candidates offer a shit sandwich but defeating Clinton, I think, throws a larger monkey wrench into the neoliberal machine. YMMV.

          1. hemeantwell

            Right. To claim that disruptive displays of disffection have the same impact today as they purportedly did in 1972 overlooks the fact that the Republican nominee has parlayed disruptive, disaffected behavior to success. We are well away from Nixonland.

            And, consider the more immediate context. Particularly when the Wikileak release has successfully helped to show that “unity” = yet another escape from justice, booing hardly = “lawlessness” as it did back then. It is more likely that it will be understood as a matter of principle, and that the call for unity is yet another evasion.

        3. Otis B Driftwood

          I know how it looks in this home – beautiful. Do you have any idea just how angry and frustrated average, progressive Democrats have become? I’m proud of those people non-violently expressing their rejection of a corrupt system and corrupt primary process. The fix this election season was the tipping point. No more corruption. No more lying. No more “acquiescence” cloaked in the language of “pragmatism”.

          No more. Time to boo and boo loudly.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            When Clinton loses, be ready to occupy the party.

            The day after her defeat = Day 1 of New Beginning. No need to wait another 4 or 8 years.

              1. thoughtful person

                A good point, I’ve not previously considered. Meanwhile, if Clinton wins, the 2020 primaries look quite different.

        4. John Zelnicker

          James – 1972, or do you mean 1968? I know I am old and my memory is problematic occasionally, but I don’t remember any serious disorganization or “antics” in 1972. However, the riots in Chicago in 1968 certainly would have turned off a number of middle Americans, although the idea was to wake them up.

          1. jrs

            So has any real change ever been accomplished by being super polite and appealing to the (not at all radical parts which is most of) the bourgeoisie? They want their safety and their law and order and their meritocracy and their hard work and their respect for businessmen and on and on. Eh whatever.

              1. savedbyirony

                I’m not saying that he didn’t have bourgeoisie supporters in both civil disobedience and funding, but his appeal was to a lower class of people on a massive scale who participated with effect in his called for acts of civil disobedience, such as the local spinning of cloth and march to the sea to make salt.

            1. Ralph Reed

              The 1972 comparison seems laden with nostalgia for the days of “the boys on the bus,” when propaganda narratives reflected more apparent diversity and morality, especially the duty of the press in a democratic state, and so the instrumentally deployed line of the “disorder” of McGovern’s coalition, effective history writing in real time in the context of the social and near-political revolution in ’71-’72.

              This rare success by the DLC and Scoop Jackson democrats at holding together a historical propaganda-line instrumentally over the decades probably causes no end of envy by the legions of stooges deployed today to create sophist choruses about the Maiden, and Ghouta, that will be obvious lies in very few years if the species is to remain contingent with its evolutionary endowment.

        5. Swamp Yankee


          In my poor household, yes we were pumping our fists when we saw it. I know a lot of people around here who feel the same way.

          Sure, I’m in New England, but while it’s less than 50 miles away, this is far from Cambridge, and people here have just had it.

          So this is just one anecdotal data point. But I doubt we are alone around here.

        6. Roquentin

          You have it exactly backwards. Middle America hates Hillary, by and large, and you look far worse by shilling for her than for taking a stand.

      3. Archie

        Exactly. Bernie has famously followed his own instincts politically. Imo, the greatest good the “left” can achieve right now is to work to defeat, utterly and completely, the entire Dem ticket (with a few exceptions), but especially at the top where the moneyed interests have invested the most. Intransigence, derision, unruliness, disrespect and anger must be on display throughout this convention. It is what these duplicitous bastards deserve from the “hippies”. A stern rebuke of the Dem establishment will also resonate in the Rep establishment.

        1. HBE

          Yes. Bernies plan amounts to acquiescence, the louder and more vocal Bernie delegates are in their disapproval the better, by being silent and polite what many will see is a unified movement behind hillary. It needs to be clear throughout the convention, that that is not the case. The left isn’t going to lay down and let neoliberalism trample them.

          People need to see clearly that hillary does not have the support of the majority, she doesn’t even have the support of 45% of the “democratic” party.

          If people see a silent acquiescence to hillarys rule, many will give up the fight or jump of the fence to her side because that’s what “everyone” else is doing.

          Don’t allow the tribe to circle the wagons and solidify, fracture it!

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Many have left the D party.

            Those who have not done so yet, they may want to have a membership card burning bonfire party at a safe location supervised by the local fire department, either now or right after the convention.

            But be ready to assume leadership of a new party on Nov 9, 2016, after the nation having soundly rejected her the day before.

            1. Arizona Slim

              I left the Ds back in 1992.

              Why? Because they stopped caring about working people and started catering to the yuppies. (Remember the Atari Democrats of the 1980s? Big turnoff for me.)

              I temporarily switched from I back to D so I could vote for Bernie back in March. Fat lotta good that did. Our March 22 primary was rigged six ways to Sunday.

              I did the #demexit in the wee hours of Wednesday, March 23.

    3. HBE

      Bernie’s primary focus seems to have shifted from positive progressivism to stop trump. Even at the cost of selling out to the worst neoliberalism (currently) has to offer.

      1. Lambert Strether

        “Elections come and go.” That’s fine, but he doesn’t give a clear picture of what happens after the election. The laundry list of policies approach won’t do.

      2. SpringTexan

        He’s not a sellout. He’s doing his best according to his lights and it’s crystal-clear he is trying to build an effective movement that will continue to pressure the establishment. Your opinion may differ on whether that’s the best course of action. But a sellout he is absolutely not.

        Not sure if he’s right. Not sure if others are right. I kind of think different courses of action work together like a “good cop”/”bad cop” thing.

    4. jrs

      there is NO WAY it could destroy the credibility as a movement, this makes no sense. People only really respect movements that are in your face and visible. It makes them want to join them, because they want to see movements actually having an outcome, not being invisible. This country longs for a movement that makes itself known. Not everyone will agree with it of course, but they will take it seriously.

      Now if he’s simply saying something like: voting for Hillary may in the long run lead to a more progressive outcome than Trump, well maybe, it’s not completely unreasonable, but I don’t think that has much to do with credibility of movements. That doesn’t seem a legit argument at all.

    5. PH

      Bernie is right.

      We need to win elections in 2018. Planning and publicity should focus first on that goal.

      We also need to have some influence on policy before 2018. How will embarrassing Clinton at her convention help that?

      Serious attempts at political action involve acting for a purpose. Opening a window and screaming “I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore” does not advance the ball.

      1. jrs

        Every protest movement acts with a purpose: to advertise their cause. It’s not enough, especially in this day and age, so it’s overly romanticized in what it can accomplish, but it’s not purposeless. The Bern protestors purpose is to advertise that a Clinton administration leaves many causes unrepresented and more honestly betrayed. It’s to speak for those causes when the whole mode of operation of the Dem party is to give lip service to them and betray them. Nothing they want is going to be achieved if people keep pretending lip service = action. That’s the entire lie that is the Dem party at this point.

        So maybe if they were really focused they could focus on issues not personalities (yea as despicable as Hillary may be as a person), but that is things like the TPP that are getting some focus. Shouting out one’s window about being mad at who knows what is futile, an organized movement that is mad about very specific things and acting in concert is not, however they can fail if they make it insufficient clear what it is all about.

        1. PH


          I hope you are right. And I hope the protests worked and built public support for Progressive causes.

          I have been involved with more than one protest. Some folks are about causes and some not so much.

          But assuming good faith, the issue is tactics. Bernie thinks the priority at this moment is to defeat Trump and the Republicans. Bernie has first-hand knowledge of the practical impact of a Republican victory because Bernie has taken part in the struggles in DC.

          1. MojaveWolf

            Bernie has first-hand knowledge of the practical impact of a Republican victory because Bernie has taken part in the struggles in DC.

            I have firsthand knowledge of both Democrat and Republican victories because I’ve lived in this country. Starting with when I legally became an adult back in ’83, I can safely say the establishment wings of both parties, D & R, have consistently failed their constituencies and the entire world for the last 30 years. Things have gotten steadily worse and look poised to get worse still. Yeah the Dems fail more competently on the whole, but they still fail in their stated goals. So why should I vote for a bunch of people who have been failing and failing and failing for the last 33 years?

            Trump will probably suck too, but the establishment wings of both parties hate him, and I view this as a good sign that maybe just maybe he will really try to oppose the TPP and maybe succeed (or, alternatively, say the hell with the “trade deal” and scrap it if it’s already signed when he gets into office) and I get the idea that he has no interest in war profiteering, and no interest in restarting the cold war. On everything else, maybe he will be as bad or worse, but these are not small things.

            I had this same conversation (make that, heated argument) with a couple of estblishment Democrats last night, one of whom works for a Democratic congressman from my state and one of whom is one of the better establishment journalists out there, and they both thought I was nuts, but their only response to my argument that the Dems have utterly failed and while I’m voting for Stein, Trump offers more upside than Hillary was to say that “You need to learn more about how government works. Governing is hard”. Really. That was the most substantive response. And that was from the better of the two people, and one who previously has shown at least *some* antipathy towards establishment politicians, and who gets the seriousness of climate change. This from a guy who referred to himself as a Jacobin leftist, which sent me looking up the term to make sure I wasn’t confused. I actually do think the man means well, which disturbs me more than if he was deliberately lying.

            assuming good faith

            I do not assume good faith on the part of hardly any democratic politician these days. To again recount my argument from last night, since you seem to be in the same space as them, it’s amazing that Reagan and Bush can accomplish stuff regardless of who has the majority in Congress, and Obama when he really wants something, yet when progressive goals come up everyone is helpless helpless helpless. Remember when Reagan and the Rs were dealing w/two democratic majorities? He and his minority congress got stuff done. Bush got stuff done w/a majority of Dick Cheney as the tie breaker, I remember Jesse Helms, who was a horror, blocking bills pretty much all by himself while everyone else dithered. I didn’t like the man but I admired his determination.

            But the “good faith” Dems couldn’t accomplish w/two houses and a prez, while Obama pushed through fast track for TPP even tho a huge majority of both party’s bases hated it. We have a track record to go by here. Either the “left” democrats are useless, terminally incompetent and need to go, or they are frauds, and they need to go. Pick one. I used to favor “weak” and have changed to “frauds”, but it really doesn’t matter for practical purposes.

            Meanwhile, pro Hillary, pro Dem establishment journalists tweet things like Berniecrats are “garbage people” (that would be a Milhiser, iirc) and post photos of crying delegates with the caption “suicidal marxists who work at TGI Fridays” (that would be Moynihan, iirc) (managing to insult servers while they are at it; one hopes next time he eats or drinks out someone pisses in his food or beverage). THAT is who supports Hillary, and the DNC, and the kind of person they are comfortable with. Why on earth would I or anyone assume “good faith” here?

            if you mean on Bernie’s part, yeah, I think he has been acting in good faith, though I”m seriously wondering if the last week is under duress. But it’s always been about the issues, and changing things in the real world. Following Bernie is no longer the way to do that, IMO, however much credit he deserves for getting us this far.

            1. PH

              Thank you for taking the time to respond.

              You put out a lot of stuff.

              I get the sense of betrayal. Especially with Obama, who talked like a progressive but never meant it. In the Senate, he was a Bluedog. As president too.

              I have told people for years not to hero worship pols. They are not heroes. It is inconsistent with the job — which is to win the next election. Bernie is as close to an exception to the rule as you will find.

              In each of the examples you provide, the answer lies not in policy choices. Pols donor care about most policy. They vote what they think is politically popular in their district at the time.

              For example, that is why Dem senators in purple states have not voted for climate action.

              Our political process will never be heroic or gratifying.

              Instead, we fight for our kids, other people, and self-respect.

              Times have changed. We need to give Progressivenames for the unease and the solutions.

              Trump sets that back. He appeals to racism and resentment. He will empower the Repub machine.

              We have a choice between bad and worse.


              1. Pat

                We almost agree on one thing, we have a choice between hideously bad (Clinton), really really bad possibly hideously so (Trump) and going screw this shit and not voting for either.

                And you seem to think that I voted for Obama once because I thought he was special. No, I just knew he was not Clinton. I was an Edwards supporter – largely because he was actually talking about the problems on the ground floor of America before the crash and he was the only one. Like I said Obama’s only appeal to me was he wasn’t Clinton.

                But let’s look at a point where we disagree entirely. You seem to think that prosecuting people who lied to get us into an illegal war AND adopted torture as a legally accepted procedure for POWs is a policy issue. No. It is an ethical issue. It is a criminal issue. It is not about policy. Just as choosing to not prosecute the Directors of Banks who decided that mortgage and foreclosure fraud was a cost of doing business is an ethical issue and a criminal issue – not a policy issue. It was also a criminal act on the part of the elected officials who chose not to do their jobs.

                I am deeply passionate about the fact that people illegally kidnapped and tortured people in my name. I am deeply passionate about the fact that criminals said it was alright to crush the testicles of children in order to fight a war they instigated illegally. I am deeply passionate about the dereliction of duty on the part of those who chose not to prosecute those criminals. It is not about policy it is about crime.

                Please get it straight.

                As for the ‘policy’ of not working to expand or protect voting rights on a state level – you are right that one is policy. But you shouldn’t let the people doing that get away with presenting the impression that they aren’t. Not if having representative elections is important to you. That is part of fighting for that self respect.

                As for appealing to racism please see Hillary Clinton’s (and Bill’s) record of both policy and campaign racism. They are just as bad and just as racist. Please do not ever bother trying to use that bull crap example about Trump as anything meaningful in a choice between the two major candidates running today. I’m too friggin’ familiar with everybody.

                1. PH

                  I was for prosecution too.

                  Disagree Hillary appeals to racism like Trump.

                  Appreciate your sincerity.

                  1. jsn

                    “Appreciate your sincerity”: what does that mean?

                    “I was for prosecution too”: so you’ve obviously gotten over that.

                    “Disagree Hillary appeals to racism like Trump”:

                    “For no society of men whatever can persevere its unity and continue to exist, if the criminal element is not punished, since, if the diseased member does not receive proper treatment, it causes all the rest, even as our own physical bodies, to share in its affliction…because when the wrong-doers have power they become more daring, and corrupt the excellent also by causing them to grow dejected and to believe that they will obtain no benefit from right behavior. For wherever the insolent element has the advantage there inevitably the decent element has the worst of it; and wherever wrong-doing is unpunished, there self-restraing also goes unrewarded… For it is not by any characteristic of birth that what is friendly is distinguished from what is hostile, but it is determined by men’s habits and actions, which, if they are good can make that which is alien like unto itself, but if bad can alienate everything, even that which is alien” Julius Caesar. Dio’s Roman History trans. E. Cary (1916)

  4. Pat

    #SlayTheSmaugs, just a suggestion, but if reporters talk to you tomorrow you might want to point out that the gerrymandering that the Party was bemoaning could be considered a direct result of the actions of the DNC under then Chair Tim Kaine that dismantled the 50 state program of previous chairman Howard Dean. One where all the field operatives that had been helping the state and local parties to field candidates, register voters and GOTV and had even helped in electing majorities to both Houses of Congress and the President were fired. You might also want to make the connection for them that rather then being about expanding the Democratic vote, the Party of the past several years has been strangely unaggressive in fighting voter suppression, working to register new voters and even as witnessed by the primaries could be seen to be attempting to suppress the vote. And now one of the people who had been part of that is going to be the Vice Presidential nominee…

    Like I said, just a suggestion.

    1. PH

      Better to look forward, and address things now.

      How does throwing bricks over the past help us?

      1. low integer

        Geez you are persistent. Give it a rest already. People here have their own informed opinions, and many don’t agree with you. Respect that.

      2. DanB

        Throwing (rhetorical) bricks helps by destabilizing and exposing a pernicious system, that’s how. You want to preserve what is because you define yourself as civil and above the crowd. Ha, ha, you’re just smug, pretentious, and blind to the Dem Party’s forms of violence and destruction. When Hillary’s administration continues the collapse of society -which is all she’s capable of doing- will you ask that it be done by looking forward and not throwing bricks?

      3. Pat

        Are you seriously suggesting we ‘look forward, not back’? Referencing one of the biggest reaming the Democratic Party with its majorities in Congress and later with its President did to the rule of law in this country? Seriously?

        No, there is no addressing things now because NOTHING has changed since 2010 regarding the DNC and its state outreach. Pointing that out IS necessary to make it clear that some people are not stupid enough to fall for the spin being put out there by the Clinton DNC.

        I do hope you got paid enough for that embarrassing statement. Otherwise you apparently are that ignorant of the DNC bullshit regarding their worries about that whole gerrymandering thing.

  5. Anne

    That’s what the corporate media wants.

    How can Bernie possibly not know that the corporate media will have the story it wants regardless of whether there is or isn’t protest. If there is no protest – if the delegates are polite – it will be spun as an admission that their political revolution has failed, and probably spun as a win for the Clinton campaign. If there is protest and booing and such, it will be spun as a bunch of butt-hurt sore losers cutting off their noses to spite their faces and – again – failing at political revolution.

    I can’t see the point in rewarding Clinton and the Democratic Party for screwing over the Sanders campaign and its supporters. She’s already rewarded DWS for helping her get this far (which, again, says something about what a crappy candidate Clinton is, that she needed that much help from the DNC, likely election fraud, some hanky-panky with campaign funds – and still came within a hair of losing the nomination, and is now struggling to get out in front of Trump), and I’d kind of like to see them drop their big girl/big boy pants and deliver a collective, giant moon to Clinton.

    So, if the corporate media’s going to write or tell the story it wants, I think people have to do whatever feels right to them.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      The energy was there before Sanders came along.

      The energy is still here after he boarded HMS Clinton.

      Clinton and the D party did not screw over the Sanders campaign. They robbed progressive voters (who will march on with or without Sanders).

      1. Archie

        Yes. They indeed did rob progressive voters. They must be treated in kind. A total rebuke of Democrats is the necessary response. It is the only response t hat matters in the greater scheme.

    2. craazyboy

      Personally, I’m kinda a mooning guy, but that’s why I don’t go places that have reporters, cops and TV cameras.

      But this polite turnip approach doesn’t seem effective either. This is a crappy time to figure out an organized resistance that plays well on TV. But why doesn’t somebody make a bunch of quick signs that say “I’m With Bernie” and then wave them at anyone looking their way. And don’t rattle the chairs!

    3. PH

      Doing what feels right?

      Why is that a priority?

      If the purpose is helping people by political action, you have to try to calculate what might work. That can be hard to do. But the goal is not to achieve emotional release.

      If people here thought that political change was going to be over in a year following one heroic winning presidential election, then you started with a mistaken assumption about the task.

      Politics is about building coalitions. If anyone has been on a co-op board or served on a school committee, you know the task is tedious and aggravating and stays that way forever. There is no final victory, and often no victory at all.

      If you really care, you must be dogged and hard-boiled. This is especially true if you intend to fight big money instead of serve big money.

      Bernie is lion-hearted.

      I have nothing but contempt for those people who deride his efforts to be practical and move forward.

      Bernie is tougher than you.

      1. SpringTexan

        Semi-agree with you, PH. I think Bernie is likely right but I’m not sure and I have respect for people who take a wide variety of strategies.

        Anyone who dismisses Bernie as a sellout however and can’t see how hard he is continuing to work for all the issues certainly calls their own judgment into question. And yes he’s lion-hearted.

        But I think most of the people who are choosing to be vocal still do respect Bernie but have a level of distrust of what can happen based on what they have seen already that leads them elsewhere. They might be right either. One thing I like about Sanders is though he is not entertaining Green Party offers (and I think he’s absolutely right), he speaks of Jill Stein in a respectful way as he knows what it is to work with an independent party himself.

        As people part ways, they need to have respect for one another, share their perspectives, and try to work together when they can agree.

      2. art guerrilla

        you know what actually works ?
        stringing up corrupt pols…
        you down with that, PH ?
        didnt think so, plenty of people dont mind murdering hundreds of thousands of brown people the world over who aint done shit to us, but blanch and stutter and blubber when you suggest a necktie party for corrupt, sociopathic pols WHO HAVE FUCKED US ALL OVER…
        you have been neutered, foad…

        1. jrs

          or you could just kill the rich, the pols are mostly just their representatives anyway, not the real power. I’m saying hey well if one was really arguing propganda of the deed.

      3. Anne

        Perhaps, rather than saying people should do what feels right, I should have said they should write the story they want to tell.

        I don’t know if what follows here is going to make sense to anyone but me, but here goes:

        I foster no illusions that political change will come easily, but what you have is, still, a tremendous amount of energy and enthusiasm and desire for change, and there’s little structure/plan to which it can now be directed in service of revolutionary change. There are, perhaps, some number of people who, when a door closes on their preferred candidate’s chances, can immediately and enthusiastically open Door No. 2. Rightly or wrongly, I think there’s a sense that closing the door on the candidate is also closing the door on the change that candidate was helping people fight for.

        This is all made harder because of what’s behind Door No. 2: someone people have reason not to trust. Someone whose judgment has not been particularly good. Someone whose views are shallowly-rooted and apt to change with the direction of the wind. Someone who appears to have conspired and colluded with the DNC to manipulate the nomination process in her favor.

        The other problem is that the concepts of compromise, incremental progress, working together and not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good are not inherently bad, but time and again we have seen Democrats give, and move and work and rationalize away important elements of what constitutes progress on issues that matter to us. I just flat-out do not believe Clinton when she says she’s opposed to the TPP, or to fracking, or to reining in Wall Street; I think those positions are DOA in a Clinton administration. I don’t think the Kissinger protege, the darling of the neocons, is going to make the world, or us, safer or more peaceful.

        Sanders has, in his many years in politics, managed to make progress within coalitions without compromising his principles; I’m not sure Clinton has any principles she wouldn’t be happy to compromise if it got her more of whatever was of most benefit to her. How do you work with a coalition that isn’t honest?

        It’s not that people aren’t willing to work, or stick with it, or accept that things won’t always go their way, it’s that they don’t believe the person they are being told they HAVE TO support is the person whose efforts and interests will align with their own.

        When you finally feel like you have a voice, and that you are being heard, the last thing you want to hear in response is “just shut up and do what we tell you, or else.” However, if they had some direction and structure to which they could turn so as to continue the fight, that would help – and I don’t know that such a thing exists in any significant and specific form at the moment.

        And, for what it’s worth, I see Sanders supporting Clinton on the basis of what he thinks she can be pushed into doing; if we’ve seen nothing else with Clinton, it’s that she is often wont to hang around somewhere in the middle of the pack, until there are enough people in line that she can dash to the front and claim she’s “always” supported or opposed the issue in questions.

        1. PH

          Thoughtful remarks. And I am sympathetic to all that you have said.

          Indeed, more than you know. I have personal as well as political reasons to despise the Clinton crowd.

          But it comes down to bad or worse.

          If Trump is elected, Clean Air Act authority to regulate ghg is gone.

          Many other important laws that we have struggled to keep will be lost. And in this era of deadlock, we cannot get those things back for a generation, at least.

          And Trump brings a level of strident racism back into public debate that it too 40 years to tamp down after the 60s.

          It is galling to see Hillary win. But ultimately it is not about her. It is about doing the best we can now, and about continuing to fight.

          1. oh

            If you really cared about Global Warming and GHG, you’d vote for the Green Party. Neither the R’s or the D’s will help limit Global Warming.

            1. PH

              How many votes does the Green Party have in Congress?

              Green Party has no power. Voting for Green Party is just a message vote.

              And no one is listening. It is futile for the near term.

              But not much will happen at Federal level. Look to states and cities.

  6. Mark John

    Why do I feel like I’m watching bizarro world?

    That’s just not the mood I am in.

  7. Eureka Springs

    While I have appreciation for the angry Sanders supporters I can’t help but wonder wtf are they thinking? I mean Sanders quit long ago. He is only there to make things worse for his own peeps, issues, etc. He conceeded long ago, has no V.P., practically nothing in the platform etc.

    What is protesting inside or outside of this event going to accomplish? Anything at all?


    1. tegnost

      I think the only effective action would be for every bernie supporter to quietly leave the convention, and let the hillarites finally, at long last, say what they stand for with no one else to point their finger at.Let them put together a brooks bros riot of their own…

    2. redleg

      It shows that the support grew from the environment, not the candidate.
      A crucial point, IMO.

      1. Marco

        Bingo! It’s not a about Bernie anymore. Anyone here see Nate’s latest electoral map at 538? He’s calling it for Trump? What the hell happened?

        1. Danny

          He isn’t calling it for Trump. Please don’t make things up. Today he said “Polls become much more accurate after the conventions. So if the race is still tied two or three weeks from now — or Trump is ahead — then it will really be time for Democrats to panic and for Trump fans to rejoice. For now, we can say that Clinton isn’t just going to glide to victory. Trump has a real chance at becoming president, and although Clinton is still favored, she’s already had a bumpy ride.”

          1. aab

            He had put Trump ahead by a SIGNIFICANT percentage this morning. I’m guessing the DNC made calls to him, or maybe to his paymasters at Disney. We know EXACTLY how that works now, thanks to the leaks.

            1. Yves Smith

              No, it’s confirmed by a CNN polls and the online betting sites putting Trump ahead. Silver doesn’t control them.

              Trump got a huge bounce out of the convention despite the pundits saying it was a train wreck. Why? Only the hacks care about who speaks. No one in the real world cared that Bush and Mittens stayed home and pouted or that Cruz tried to embarrass him. What they noticed was he seems to have a very nice family. That says to ordinary American that maybe he isn’t a big scary monster. And his speech was good despite the Acela classes whinging about how dark it was.

              1. Waldenpond

                I don’t think it’s big enough at this time. It looks like Trump is to Clinton as McCain was to Obama at this same time.

                Unless WL has something other than DNC corruption (which interests those that are suing), I think it will still be Clinton by a few points.

                1. Pat

                  If she were able to over come her tone deafness regarding reading the public AND had some charisma I might buy it. But she makes stupid campaign mistakes and is hated. Whatever you want to say about Trump, the usual suspects have always underestimated his appeal to the public AND he is one heck of a salesman. And unlike Sanders he will not hesitate to point out her numerous lies and hypocrisies on policy and her corruption. And he thinks fast on his feet, she does not. The first, and probably last, debate is going to be a debacle. And that doesn’t even consider the possible October Surprises and the premium increases people are going to be hit with in the days before the election.

                  WL is only one small mine in a field full of them for Clinton.

              2. aab

                You misunderstood me, Yves. I meant, he had posted the Trump bounce tipping the likelihood of Trump winning to over 50%. Then later in the same day, he switched it back, according to people here. I had seen the first one. My point is that it is quite likely if he changed it the same day to put Clinton on top, it wouldn’t be because he got new data, it would be because the DNC/Clinton Campaign pressured his bosses or pressured him directly. The leaked emails showed very similar things happening on earlier stories, like pressuring CBS to change a story already up about poll results.

                I agree that his bounce is real, and that the elites deeply misunderstand how this stuff comes off.

    3. SpringTexan

      No, he did not quit. If you can’t see that, you are not seeing what is important.

      1. ekstase

        Yeah, I saw this part too and couldn’t watch anymore. I like real theater, but they say that’s dead now.

  8. Kurt Sperry

    When was the last time I watched one of these conventions? Maybe 2008? I’m feeling a visceral disgust I don’t think I’ve ever felt before. At least not to this degree. I just watched Franken, Silverman and now Booker and I feel like I need to take a shower. It feels like a big con, like a listening to a multi-level marketing pitch, like everyone in range is a mark getting played. I think Simon was called in early to shut the Berners up and that’s why Silverman had to stretch. I think I need another beer, this is rough sledding.

    1. Lambert Strether

      Booker “When we respect each other.” Well, except for 45% of the Democrat primary vote. They’re racist and sexist #Berniebros. It’s important to add nuance to these discussions…

      1. Lambert Strether

        Booker shouting about labor unions now. How’s card check coming?

        To be fair, he’s got a good cadence. Perhaps some of the more naive will fall for private equity-lovin’, charter school fan Booker.

        Adding… I’m betting he’s going to get one of those diversity seats on the Fed. I think people will be surprised at how accomodating he is.

              1. cwaltz

                Of course.

                The carefully choreographed coronation must not be disrupted by the rabble.

                Good luck Democrat Party reformers, it looks like you are going to need it.

                1. Archie

                  You’re beginning to get it Chigal. No more Mr/Ms nice guy. They must be a shunned, loudly and publicly.

              2. craazyboy

                I suppose that would be because they only have one candidate running?

                Just trying to follow along.

            1. ChiGal

              Yeah he left out blacks when he did his catalogue of all the people who deserve opportunity or whatever the heck it was

              1. Lambert Strether

                Are you sure?

                We become stronger when black and white, Latino, Asian-American, Native American – all of us – stand together. Yes. We become stronger when men and women, young and old, gay and straight, native born and immigrant fight to create the kind of country we all know we can become.

        1. PH

          I won’t be surprised. I would call Booker a fraud if I knew what he was pretending to be.

          He loves to hang out with Republicans. Thinks it says something.

          It does. But not what he thinks it says.

    2. crittermom

      I foolishly thought I’d be able to watch or listen to the convention.
      Nope. I’m not a paid TV subscriber so I’m forbidden from watching Democracy (!) in progress.
      Thanks to a commenter on here I was able to link to Bernie’s speech.
      Unfortunately, it held no surprises.

      UPDATE: I just found a place I can watch it. Now to find my hip waders…

    3. August West

      @ Kurt. Thanks for saying the things I have also been feeling but couldn’t form the words. Wow just wow. All about identity politics tonite! Will there be any economic policy talk. Prolly from Warren. Oh and Corey Booker meh! Am I the only one that is sick of the identity politics? I guess it is a way to avoid talking about the issues that are so important, TPP, climate change, justice system ,MONEY IN POLITICS….the list goes on and on. Thanks for letting me vent.

    4. regime change

      Yeah, it’s disgusting.
      It’s also pretty f’n exciting. This is the 100th monkey.

        1. SpringTexan

          Yes, he was a total pickle face, exuded hostility as Sanders spoke. It was remarkable.

    1. sd

      Armchair doctor: he looks exactly like a man I know of about the same age who has Crohns disease.

    2. low integer

      Cocaine addiction can cause long-term mental and physical problems. The method of using cocaine determines where the health complications are located. For example, snorting often causes respiratory failure and nosebleeds. Other health complications from cocaine use and addiction include:

      – depression
      – unhealthy weight loss
      – heart arrhythmia
      – increased heart rate
      – heart attack
      – chest pain
      – respiratory diseases
      – seizure
      – stroke
      – nausea
      – abdominal pain
      – headaches
      – weakened immune system
      – hepatitis (common with injections)
      – gangrene of the bowels (common with ingestion)

  9. Kurt Sperry

    Michelle has got her elbows resting comfortably on the “identity politics” keys of the Grand Wurlitzer. And true to the idiom it was all boilerplate and platitudes, although she delivers them pretty damn well have to admit. But beneath the delivery there’s damn little substance I’m afraid. Here comes Warren, the expectation bar is loooooow.

    1. Lambert Strether

      Warren: “Try to do anything for working people and you’ll have a fight on your hands.” Democrats do that, followed by a list of weak tea reforms not specifically targeted at working people. Followed by another list of weak tea reforms…

    2. Roger Smith

      You just be a welfare queen the Lambert. Oh well, tough luck.

      Are those tears she’s bringing on?

      1. Lambert Strether

        She’s better than Booker. She got a call and response thing going when Booker couldn’t.

        She sounds a lot like Julia Gillard talking about Tony Abbott — she just doesn’t seem to like the man.

        Warren: “Not now, not ever.” <-- and I swear I wrote the previous before she said that. Now a bunch of "fight for" stuff. Disproportion between problems even Warren admits and Democrat solutions is pretty stunning. On trade: "Hillary will fight for American workers." Bafflegab.

        1. Bubba_Gump

          I can’t stand that Bob Shrum-ish “fight for” bullsh*t. it’s such a load of cr*p, and these silly dems keep saying it election after losing election. I also can’t stand “stand with.”

        2. pretzelattack

          i think bafflegab was the language spoken by some giant ducks in a science fiction novel.

        3. Skippy

          “She sounds a lot like Julia Gillard talking about Tony Abbott”

          Yes… and behind closed doors at an industry packed consortium… she did a Hillary and said I’m your Gal…. we will not bend to populism… we have your back…

          1. low integer

            Yes. She is a smart person and there are things about her I admire, namely her resilience, yet her unchecked ambition was at least partly responsible for Abbott’s ascendency imo.

            1. Skippy

              The socialists et al had her pegged dead set….

              On the basis of the above The Greens can hardly be called Left, leftish perhaps in a bourgeois sort of way, but on key issues within their platform, such as management of water and land-use they have squibbed it.

              The so-called Left of the Labor Party has allowed the Right to call the shots. The fact that a Labor Party has a Right which dominates the party agenda is a significant statement in terms the current political environment.

              In a recent interview on ABC TV, former prime minister John Howard described his politics as conservative, but there was nothing conservative about taking Australia to war and nothing conservative in the systematic abuse of asylum seekers and the election ploy of abusing Aborigines through the cruel ploy of a military backed ‘intervention’. I would call these measures radical.

              I have had enough of the radical Right, of the abusive Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, who suck up to our big and powerful friends and kick down the most vulnerable and those most in need. They are weak and they are bullies and we don’t need them.


              Disheveled Marsupial…. for what ever past she had with the democratic socialist party… she killed it… now Shorten is where Malcolm used to be…

              1. low integer

                I have had enough of the radical Right

                Yep. They are just such miserable creatures, know the price of everything, value of nothing etc. My views on Gilliard have softened over the years, Abbott shifted my reference point dramatically.
                Bit unsure what you mean by “now Shorten is where Malcolm used to be”, though I assume you are talking about Mal’s time as opposition leader presiding over an ideologically split party.

    3. NotTimothyGeithner

      Isn’t the obvious response “no shit, Sherlock.”? People know they are being screwed already.

      Warren is a Senator. Why did she endorse the TPP candidate? This is a rotating hero strategy instead of a rotating villain strategy.

      1. Arizona Slim

        Aw, come on, SpringTexan. We singles don’t count. We aren’t part of the, ahem, family.

  10. Buttinsky

    Sarah “Vote for Hillary with Gusto” Silverman:

    Some delegates on the Wells Fargo Center floor broke out in a chant of “Bernie!” Over the gathering chant, Silverman chided back: “To the ‘Bernie or Bust’ people, you’re being ridiculous.”

    Why, yes. Yes, they are. Wonderful how Ms. Silverman captures the esprit de “unity 2016.” Just like all those DNC emails. Wasn’t it lucky they just happened to ask her to speak.

  11. Michael

    Warren is awful. It’s the evil Republicans. Red meat to the base.

    Anyone else watch Clinton Cash?

    1. Roger Smith

      Just saw it this morning. Seemed like A relatively general presentation. It gives a good framework for understanding connections and how to tackle further inquiry.

      1. Michael

        Same view here. If you are not informed it will be an eye opener. I thought it did a good job talking about the disconnect between the language used by “liberal” elites and the policies they enact.

        I hope it gains traction on the left.

    2. NotTimothyGeithner

      The Democrats are woefully out of touch. People are barely holding on and having a comedian tell people they are being ridiculous is simply insane.

      Wow, Liz, are you sure the system is rigged? Everyone knows that.

      Trump will be President. At the end of the day, no one will care Michelle is a nice lady.

      1. low integer

        At the end of the day, no one will care Michelle is a nice lady.

        It’s very easy to be nice when you are removed, or can remove yourself at will, from the fray of neoliberalism.

  12. timbers

    “Why experts are sure Russia hacked the DNC” with pic of Putin – MSNBC. Hillary kicks off her campaign for WW3 with Russia as payback to her donors

      1. timbers

        Summarization of MSBC:

        The DNC emails are “so transparent” that “anyone can see them” but 3 experts have conclusively determined that Putin “stole” the emails. (Putin “stole” emails that are “so transparent anyone can see”)

        MSNBC GUEST: And also we know Putin did it because “it’s indisputable” that Russia have vast “capability”.

        Racheal Madow: “this seems to be an over the top spy movie…” I don’t like her anymore but she’s right in this case.

      2. SpringTexan

        Yes, I’m irritated this narrative is being pushed with only say-so evidence. Snowden tweeted “If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it. But during the #Sony hack, the FBI presented evidence.”

        If there’s actual proof, fine, but seems tenuous and prima facie unlikely to me.

    1. sd

      Any word from Curveball? I totally trust him to give us the real skinny. It worked so well the first time.

      1. ggm

        We didn’t even need to give the weapons inspectors time to look at those server logs. Amazing. The media appears fully on board with Hillary’s aggressively irresponsible accusations that appear to have been conjured out of thin air. The OSP is back in business.

        1. SpringTexan

          Thanks, ggm, apt comparison! Yes it sounds of a piece with the narratives they came up with against Bernie before. That’s my gut feeling.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Chanting induces trance and can actually heal.

      You don’t need marijuana, peyote or any of that stuff.

  13. Unsympathetic

    This is all so stupid. Seriously, people: Trump is LEADING in all the polls. Infighting and positional jockeying is all well and good, but only AFTER winning the seat.
    The time for worrying about this is AFTER the election, and not one minute before.

    Trump doesn’t care about anything you want.. and won’t listen to you at all.

    Clinton didn’t reject Glass-Steagall.. that was led by Republicans both in the House and Senate. Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed on November 4, 1999 in the House in a vote of 362-57 and by the Senate in a vote of 90-8. So cut the nonsense about it being led by Clinton.. rather, it was led by the 3 Republicans whose names are on the bill.

      1. PH

        Stupid. And consistent with Rubin Wall Street policy.

        But who was marching in the street to stop that?

        It was 1999 and hurray for the bubble! A new economic age with new economic rules — like every bubble.

        The point is how do we address the next financial crisis if you believe, as I do, that one is coming?

        We are not in great shape if Trump wins or if Hillary wins. But hope, faint as it is, lies in Democratic rule rather than Rrpubliczn rule now, and efforts to elect Progressive Democrats in the future.

        1. jrs

          that hope is probably going to kill thousands of people, when they find themselves the victims of the recession and DC bailing out the rich if anyone.

    1. Otis B Driftwood

      Bull Shit about Clinton and Glass-Steagall. He supported repeal. So did the execrable Larry Summers and Robert Rubin and others in his misadministration.

      1. nowhere

        Yeah, there is a pretty good Frontline episode that gives a high-level review of the players.

    2. Christopher Fay

      pro-Hillary trolling getting more sophisticated?

      Yes, Trump is leading in the pols. Hillary is a horrible plutocrat candidate. Her core beliefs don’t mesh with Americans’ realities. And as Lambert has been saying S S Hillary, more bad news to come.

    3. ian

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the GOP platform just call for a revival of Glass-Steagel?

        1. Myron

          Key phrase from Sanders was “21st century” Glass-Steagall. No use of the word “reinstate”…

    4. Propertius

      This is all so stupid. Seriously, people: Trump is LEADING in all the polls. Infighting and positional jockeying is all well and good, but only AFTER winning the seat.
      The time for worrying about this is AFTER the election, and not one minute before.

      Hint: when you’re trying to persuade people, starting out by calling them “stupid” (or “ridiculous”) is typically not a successful tactic. I’d venture that you lost most of your audience with your first sentence.

      And yes, I think blaming Bill Clinton for the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley is unjustified – even if he’d vetoed it Congress would have overridden it. That doesn’t mean the gesture wouldn’t have been appreciated. And while we’re talking Glass-Steagall, one major political party is calling for its restoration and one of them isn’t. So much for the Trump bogeyman.

      1. Pat

        You might want to look at the history GLB before you clear Clinton of complicity with regards to its passage.

        1. Propertius

          To be a little more clear: I don’t think it’s reasonable to place all the blame on the sitting President when nearly every Senator voted for GLB (and an overwhelming majority in the House, as well). Yes, he should have vetoed it (even though that wouldn’t have accomplished anything). There’s plenty of blame to go around. Clinton certainly gets some of it, just not all of it.

      2. PH

        News flash: party platforms are irrelevant.

        At most, you can get some publicity out of them. Usually not even that.

        Do you think Republicans in Congress support bringing back Glass Steagall?

        Emphatically not. There is ZERO percent chance.

        Please people, get your heads out of the clouds. There exists real world political institutions.

        Trump’s slogans are just a con. He will rule with the Republican establishment.

        1. tegnost

          Bill Clinton got rid of Glass-Steagall (by ruling with the republican establishment)and we’re supposed to be upset the republicans won’t bring it back? And we should support his wife for the same reason we’re not supposed to support republicans? What is a Party without a platform? Your head is in the clouds. Your arguments are all weak. One example of a real world political institution is a bloc of voters who emphatically say F.U.

    5. Yves Smith

      We had a whole video of a love fest with Clinton and Phil Gramm and Larry Summers and other horribles congratulating themselves over the repeal. Stop bullshitting.

      But as we’ve long said, the formal repeal was a huge nothingburger. Glass Steagall was already meaningless. The only reason for its formal repeal was so that Travelers could buy Citigroup, meaning combining a big insurer with a bank! It had nada to do with the securities industry v. banking at that point.

      The really terrible things that happened on Clinton’s watch?

      1. Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary

      2. Reappointing Greenspan as Fed chief

      3. Larry Summers as later Treasury Secretary.

      Among other things, they ganged up on Brooksley Born on regulating credit default swaps….

      1. PH

        Agreed. Wrong from start to finish.

        But the bubble made them look smart for a while, and the public cheered the boom.

      2. SpringTexan

        Yes, I remember angrily saying that I didn’t vote for Clinton so he could re-appoint Greenspan.

      3. Ralph Reed

        George Mitchell almost got State but Clinton gave Defense to Bill Cohen instead, which was by far his worse cabinet decision for the reason of publicizing really bad poetry(tried to find references but looks like Alphabet scrubbed them or I’m simply not competent at online referencing), let alone it being probably a given that nukes will trump economics unless you’re religious-minded or expedient.

    6. Glen

      No juju after Clinton wins.

      No juju after Trump wins.

      You want my vote, you gotta earn it right now.

      This ain’t bean bag.

    1. Archie

      What a complete load of manure. The “movement4bernie” people need to come up with a nwe name.

  14. Roger Smith

    That girl they just showed crying. That is the outcome of this election. More sustained misery and societal compression.

  15. Buzz Meeks

    Was hoping Warren would do some pay back and endorse Sanders. I have seen better cons and shell games run at carnivals and county fairs with all of the speakers thus far. My only satisfaction out of this is I am a lead plaintiff in the Wasserman-Schultz DNC collusion and voter fraud class action law suit.

    Sanders just punked out, fuck him. Roll call vote tomorrow? He just critiques the problems and endorses the problem.

    Buzz Meeks

    1. Gee

      Really? I was mentioning this earlier on another thread but didn’t heAr anything. How do I join?

      1. Buzz Meeks

        Go to

        Sanders is really starting to piss me off. I am shutting it down for the night.

      1. inode_buddha

        I already joined the suit. Legalese and $$$ are the only things that get their attention.

          1. Buzz Meeks

            Unfortunately there is not a US Attorney that would touch a RICO investigation. As political appointees they owe their careers to their benefactors and are also probably very aware of what would happen to their own personal safety if they tried to proceed with RICO. The shootings of Congress rep Giffords and US District Judge John Roll comes to mind. Plus the FBI has already punked out on investigating Klinton so I would not hold much hope in a vigorous investigation into Wasserman and the DNC.

    2. craazyboy

      “I am a lead plaintiff in the Wasserman-Schultz DNC collusion and voter fraud class action law suit.”

      I think that’s a great idea. But I’d direct the anger at the DNC and DWS. Get the bad guys. I’d cut Bernie a break. But since it’s DNC corporate money – go for pain and suffering too. Maybe you’ll get a sympathetic judge.

    3. redleg

      Buzz’ -you must LOVE the Clinton campaign letter re. DWS’ resignation that states how DWS will “continue to be a surrogate” for HRC. Putting that out there is either unfathomably stupid or spectacularly incompetent, and I hope it wins it for all y’all.

    4. SpringTexan

      No, he didn’t punk out. He is doing his best according to his lights and may be right.

      But good for you on the lawsuit.

  16. Otis B Driftwood

    Sanders rails against the 1%, then endorses their standard bearer. No less sickening than if it were unexpected. It’s as if everything before was a lie.

    None of the Above in 2016.

    Vote for Jill Stein.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Are we talking about the Stockholm Syndrome here or has this always been the promise, the plan all along?

      1. DarkMatters

        I can’t stop thinking about his “Enough of the damn emails!” reaction. What in the world was that ever about? It just stood out.

    2. Aumua

      I’m with the ‘cut Bernie some slack’ contingent. If he’s up there lying now.. remember that he’s been up there telling the TRUTH for however many months and/or years. On the other hand, I ain’t watching that shit. I can’t handle it right now.

      1. PH

        Elections, on a good day, are won by majority vote.

        The NC crowd is an insufficient coalition for a ruling majority.

        If progressives will ever win, they will need people who do not agree with them on everything, but who self identify more as Dem than Repub.

        You do not gain that future support by loathing everyone except the purest of the pure.

        1. tegnost

          We got where we are by repeatedly choosing the lesser of two evils, not insisting on the purest of the pure. Now we’re sick of it, don’t need a candidate who needs republican votes to win The NC crowd is a small sub group that doesn’t constitute a majority of people who are sick of it. We’re some of the people who are sick of it. If the democrat party insists on not serving it’s base in order to glean republican votes, then the base is foolish to support them. Elections are won by majority vote, if you abandon your majority, you lose. Hillary represents the top 20%, that leaves 80% to vote against her. Good Luck. You get nothing from people by supporting them when they have a track record of not supporting you, you make yourself powerless, and them more powerful.

      2. SpringTexan

        Thanks Aumua. You are right he is a canny person who is doing his best according to his own lights and is continuing to fight. Makes me mad to see the super-judgmental people here. I was able to watch the speech last night but kept my off button at the ready and it’s FINE if you don’t want to watch I totally understand. May be the last speech I’ll watch for awhile but I wanted to both see it and see audience reaction.

        I’ll enjoy it though when he goes to Florida to campaign for Canova.

  17. cwaltz

    Someone should tell Bernie that the Koch brothers are for Clinton. He definitely phoned his speech in.

    1. PH

      Koch boys are giving millions to elect Republicans.

      That is their machine, and they know it.

    2. Arizona Slim

      He’s been phoning speeches in since the spring.

      How do I know this? Because I saw him three times between July 2015 and March 2016.

      First speech was in Phoenix. July 18, 2015. Holy shhh! The man was on FIRE. For an hour.

      Second speech was in Tucson. October 9, 2015. I was with 13,000 of my best friends in Reid Park. Before the speech, I spoke with people who drove more than 300 miles to hear Bernie. 300 miles. Think about that.

      Again, Bernie was on FIRE. So was the crowd.

      Third speech was puzzling, to say the least. That was on March 18, 2016 at the Tucson Convention Center Arena.

      Lots of empty seats and not much of a line to get in. And Bernie? What happened? The guy sounded flat. Uninspired. Like he was going through the motions.

      1. Lambert Strether

        Here’s the quote:

        Recently, however, we have come together on a proposal that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that the children of any family this country with an annual income of $125,000 a year or less – 83 percent of our population – will be able to go to a public college or university tuition free. That proposal also substantially reduces student debt.

        I’d need to see the detail, of course, but if in fact existing student debt is reduced, that’s an improvement on both the Sanders and Warren plans.

          1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

            Future debt, as in, students will continue to have to borrow in order to qualify themselves to be working serfs???

        1. SpringTexan

          Student borrowers could defer loan payments for three months under a reprieve she is promising to impose through the unilateral power of the presidency if she wins the election and becomes president next year. The proposal is expected to cost the federal government more than $1 billion, not because of the short hiatus but because of the lost interest when borrowers refinance to cheaper loans. …Clinton has frequently told audiences she wants to find other ways to help student borrowers refinance loans with interest rates that are often far higher than home mortgages or car loans. In addition to the plan she will announce on Wednesday, Clinton’s debt reduction proposals include limiting student loan payments to a proportion of the borrowers debt….Clinton frequently talks of the advantages of loan repayment plans that are tied to income, which would be one of the refinancing options along with help reducing fees and resolving delinquent debts.

  18. HBE

    “Substantially reduces student debt” What about the ~ trillion in existing students debt that can’t be discharged through bankruptcy Bernie.

      1. marym

        Hillary Clinton recently released a student loan forgiveness plan that includes a three-month moratorium on repayment, additional refinancing options, expanded income-based repayment plans, employer assistance programs, and deferment for entrepreneurs. Numerous private companies have jumped into the student loan refinancing market in recent years hoping to capitalize on it. In exchange for lower interest rates, they are offering fewer repayment and forgiveness options.

        On her website:

        Borrowers will be able to refinance loans at current rates, providing debt relief to an estimated 25 million people. They’ll never have to pay back more than 10 percent of their income, and all remaining college debt will be forgiven after 20 years.

        emphasis added

        1. HBE

          That amounts to a ~ 6% reduction for most in yearly payments, based on avg graduate income. Better than nothing but amounts to scraps to the plebs from TBTP and that’s if it actually turns into policy.

          1. craazyboy

            Well, ya never know. The next Einstein could be out there somewhere. Or the next Bret Farve!

            This is even more ridiculous when you recall that Bill Gates dropped out of college to start MSFT, saying that college was a was of time!

            My self serve dog wash here doesn’t seem to be doing that well. Doubt it will even pay off freshman year.

            These people just want to believe in our fantasy world way too hard.

            1. jrs

              Kinda of yea though, why are they getting all this education if they are just going to be entrepreneurs anyway, when for starting most businesses it’s not needed (for highly technical stuff yes).

  19. Roger Smith

    What is he even talking about. Clinton is not offering anything substantial. This is why Bernie wasn’t the right person to lead this movement. He doesn’t have any bite. He has hard proof the party strongarmes him, decades of proof that Democrats are a YUGE contributor to society’s ills… And instead if shining and making the speech of a century, he is stumping for crooks and whores.

    1. Lambert Strether

      The first half was great. The second half was the Clinton endorsement.

      I agree with Sanders that “elections come and go.” Unfortunately, what the speech lacked was a sense of what happens after this election. So, we have thesis (revolution, part one), antithesis (reform, part two), but no synthesis. I can see how this would be a difficult pivot, but there was no better opportunity to make the pivot than this evening.

          1. Arizona Slim

            Tell me about it.

            What really galled me about Bernie’s speeches was the praise for Obama’s handling of the economy vs. Bush’s.


            When Bush was in office, I had a successful little business going. Now? I’m struggling to get by, as I have for most of Obama’s presidency.

            Recovery? Not seeing it here.

      1. Marco

        The Iron Law of institutions applies to Bernie as well. 25+ years in Congress caucusing with Team D so I can certainly understand his need for survival and protecting his “investment”. So….this was not a Revolution after all…and I hate being snookered into thinking it was.

      2. inode_buddha

        Did you notice Clinton’s “body language” during the parts about inequality? *Very* defensive looking.

      3. SpringTexan

        He’s hoping his supporters will keep him in the game and he can push later, think he made that clear. I think he’s saying as much as is prudent at this point. I do trust him to keep pushing.

  20. petal

    Friends, thanks for watching this so I don’t have to. So disgusted by the whole thing. Two friends who had been Sanders supporters just posted they wish Michelle Obama could be the candidate and said they will absolutely vote for HC. Unreal. Of course these two people are very well off and will never have to worry about their jobs/financial security. I will never understand how anyone can …swallow all of this hook, line and sinker without questioning anything, especially after how Sanders and his supporters were treated. You get kicked and insulted non-stop and then go suck up to the one that did it and praise them. I despair. I really do. It’s blind following and there is nothing that would cause them to snap out of it.
    Was wondering earlier if the text/message sent by Sanders was because his post was threatened? Like “Keep your people in line and don’t ruin this, old man, or else.”

    1. cnchal

      . . . You get kicked and insulted non-stop and then go suck up to the one that did it and praise them. . .

      That is the best one line description of what a relationship with a narcissist is, that I have read in a long time.

      1. petal

        I grew up with an abusive father who demanded the world revolve around him, and my mother(who was the breadwinner) refused to leave and thought he was the best thing since sliced bread even though he was horrible to her and even worse to me. I lived this and maybe it’s why I can’t understand how people cannot see through all of this garbage, and they lap it up and cheer. Maybe she thought she didn’t deserve better. I see a lot of similarities. Most everyone seems to be falling into line/buying it this morning in response to last night’s speeches, right on cue-except for me and one of my buddies that’s been at the bottom and seen some pretty bad stuff. He’s been getting flamed for not falling in line since he spoke out about it last night. Funny that.

    1. EoinW

      Stein will get more exposure in time, as the media recognize that’s it’s a way to take votes away from Trump.

  21. HBE

    “Hillary Clinton doesn’t worry about the profits of the fossil fuel industry”

    Oh its not like they expect anything for the 6million plus they have given her foundation or her presidential run Bernie.

  22. HBE

    No more universal Healthcare Bernie. Its great you facking support people being able to choose any expensive pseudo insurance they want from “public exchanges”.

  23. Roger Smith

    I keep waiting for Bill to stumble over that railing… Or get caught placing his hands where they don’t belong.

  24. August West

    Haha. Did any see someone had a sign Stronger Together, but they pasted Bernie’s name on top and crossed out together so it just said Bernie Stronger!!

  25. HBE

    Well Bernie, you betrayed your followers quickly. I hope the movement goes on but you stay far far away from it now.

    1. Lambert Strether

      Sanders is, at the end of the day, a legislator. I think, at least in his own mind, he cut the best deal he could; as for example in getting 20 million children coverage as his price for ObamaCare. And for a legislator, there’s always another session coming along.

      There’s no point complaining, really; as I keep saying, Sanders was the one who saw power lying in the street, and picked it up. No one else did! And he ran as far as he could.

      I think the real issue, however, is that an executive sensibility is needed (like FDR) and not a legislative one (like Sanders, or for that matter, Obama). Clinton has executive experience as Secretary of State, but her track record shows terrible judgment. Something to ponder. I don’t know if the left throws up executives (Occupy didn’t).

      Adding, that the movement will go on is baked in, at this point, I think. Giant social forces are in play now, and all over the world.

      1. HBE

        True, and I think deep down I probably knew sanders wasn’t for “revolutionary” changes.

        I fell into the trap of saviorism and what amounts to the easy one man fix, when I knew /know that the easy fix just isn’t possible whether it’s politics, the environment, or nearly anything else (especially under rampant neoliberalism). Positive true change is a struggle and a grind, not just a ballot. While we work on the grind we also do what little is possible to hamstring those that stand in the way, and would like to further solidify things as they are.

        1. Lambert Strether

          I think if you look at the trendlines from 2000 to today, you see a rising flood that has not yet crested. Not by any means. This election is at best a truce, given that Clinton, if she wins, will immediately purge the left, which they have already shown the proclivity to do. Voting is one thing, organizing and activism are quite another, I would say…

          To put this another way, the jewel in the crown, as it were, is left institutions and leadership. Did Sanders weaken, or strengthen them? I would say strengthen, even given this speech. (One of the salutary aspects of Clinton constantly kicking the left, and seeking to appeal to Republicans, is that it makes it harder for the Dems to decapitiate left institutions — which is why “sheepdogging” really matters.)

          And if Sanders is Moses, and never enters the promised land, well, that’s maybe what was meant to be. It isn’t as if the opportunity for Sanders 2.0, with some of the bugs worked out, doesn’t exist. Whichever candidate wins, the opportunity can only increase IMNSHO.

          1. aab

            I am just starting to catch up over here and need to go to bed. But thought you might find it interesting that Peter Daou basically threatened Van Jones on Twitter tonight not to step out of line, for a very mild comment about how the process had been tainted.

            I thought that was…interesting.

            I will say again the only hope for the left is keeping Clinton out of office now.

      2. frosty zoom

        i disagree he ran as far as he could.

        he ran as far as he was allowed.

        or, he ran as far as he wanted.

        but ¿could? nope. if he had done that, he would have called out ms. clinton for so much corruption and violence, not endorsed her.

      3. PH

        I largely agree with you.

        What we need has largely not been invented yet.

        And I worry that we have no minor leagues to develop the talent.

        Lacking any better plan, I think we need to find progressive candidates and run them in Dem primaries.

        Problem is there is no significant organization dedicated to the task.

        I doubt that an army of bloggers will ever be an effective political force — at least, not alone.

        I worry about our lack of organization. But I do not have any particularly good ideas about what to do next.

      4. SpringTexan

        Yes, and he’s getting a lot of money for federally qualified health clinics. That matters. A lot.

      5. Glen

        Totally agree. He will have to negotiate, that’s what he does, and he is quite good at it.

        Given all that, protests at the DNC will enable him to negotiate a better deal.

    2. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      “It’s up to you.”

      That sounds more like, ‘You are on your own, buddy.”

  26. Lambert Strether

    Bill Clinton box during Part One of Sanders speech (1% vs 99%):


    Bill Clinton during Part Two of Sanders speech (Clinton endorsement):


    Jane Sanders during Part Two of Sanders speech (Clinton endorsement):



    1. Roger Smith

      Thanks for this! I was doing the same thing in my head. You should Clinton at the end. He stood up like he was so happily surprised that everything went “according to plan”

        1. Christopher Fay

          The woman on Bill’s right, and companion for the night, is Claire Underwood, the woman on Bill’s left is Hillary’s main consigliere at DNC now

          1. Epistrophy

            Ha ha! Claire Underwood House of Cards

            “Claire Underwood is the 48th First Lady of the United States, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, wife of President Francis “Frank” Underwood and the Democratic Nominee for the Vice Presidency ….”

            Sitting next to Bill Clinton? Too much …

            The DNC is a complete joke. If the American people elect HRC they deserve what they are gonna get …

    2. low integer

      I know this a little lowbrow for this site but Bill Clinton seriously needs a fist in his face. I nominate this guy to do the honours.

  27. dk

    The clip about gerrymandering is interesting. It certainly is important, 2020 is the next redistricting year.

    Is the DNC trying to signal the movement folks to do some of the work, which would benefit the DNC, somehow at the disadvantage of the movement? I think that’s an over-think; fair districts are a “public good”, and working on their legislation builds information and experience. I’m open to other arguments.

    If nobody presents counter proposals against whatever Reps come up with, the Reps make more headway.

    In 2010 the DNC were almost completely flat footed, and pushed a lot of the onus onto State Dem Parties, which for the most part couldn’t or didn’t want to afford a major in-house effort (and resource). And in the absence of a consistent 50-state strategy, Dems had already lost a lot of ground in state legislatures (where the district proposals are actually decided). This suggests that the big DNC donors didn’t want to foot the bill, or had other projects to push.

    A software suite used to assist redistricting here:
    Probably not the only such product, but cartographers and GIS specialists can do similar things with ArcGIS or QGIS (the latter is free), some state universities have cartographic departments that can handle it as well. Regardless of the GIS platform, the end products of the process (not the software) are 1) proposals and 2) counter arguments to other peoples/parties proposals.

    Trying to take Congress is all well and good, but in the longer term, state legislatures are currently mostly majority-Rep ( some of the ground for national policies are laid there. So if the movement wants to make its mark in 2020 redistricting, they will need to seat people in those legislatures, and not just a few. Consider it an investment in a future crop of movement federal candidates.

      1. dk

        Superficial overview here:
        the external links have more depth.

        Short answer: establish teams in all 50 or targeted states, build the expertise of the local problems/issues, try to fix some outrageous ‘manders and win a percentage of the battles. As often as not the calculations are built to fit the desired map, instead of starting with data and seeing what it yields. One of the goals is to minimize changes (it can really piss citizens off to wake up one day with different representation that they never voted on).

        Worth doing but not simple, and hard (and actually, pointless) to be uniform.

  28. frosty zoom

    i honestly don’t know why anyone would watch this; after all, the revolution won’t be televised.

    so much phoniness..


    a personal message to mr. sanders from ol’ fz:

    sir, it is inevitable that all our lives come to an end. i have followed your career for many years, thinking there was at least one sane, caring person in washington. you had the chance, as you enter the final years of your life, to actually accomplish many of the fine goals you had spent your political life fighting for. dude, you could have made america great again. sorry to bring it up again, but what did you have to lose in these last decades of your life? you would have betrayed the party that has mocked you for decades. so what? they deserve it. you could have melted ms. clinton on any one of those debate stages. you could have really fought to restore democracy to america by actually doing something about so many instances of voter fraud carried out against you. you could have demanded those damn emails!

    but alas, no, you wilted when the chance came to actually slay those windmills.

    and now, what? ambassador to costa rica? nice place to retire, i suppose.

    people really needed you to be their voice. instead, you’ve become a marionette parroting the words of some of the most evil people this planet has ever known.

    good luck, mr. sanders.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      This reminds me of the film The Blue Angel (Der blaue Engel), when the professor (Emil Jannings), who had since marrying Lola, lowered himself to become a clown in the travelling show, was forced to perform his clown act in his home town for all this former colleagues to see.

    2. PH

      Bernie moved the ball forward. Only he had the audacity to challenge the dominant clique.

      There is much more to do. Who will pick up the banner?

      Bernie recognized (astutely — because I agree) that the most likely path to real power is by capturing the Dem party.

      Now the goal is to defeat the Republicans in the fall. It matters.

      1. frosty zoom

        it didn’t matter in 2008. trounced, they were, those nasty republicans.

        and what did you get?

    3. SpringTexan

      Nonsense. He’s continuing to work for all he’s ever worked for and will go on in the senate, he is not retiring.

      In the compromises with Clinton he got some promises she may not keep (though he’ll be pushing), but others she likely will, like more money for federally qualified health clinics. That really matters.

      Marionette? Not for a moment.

  29. ian

    I’m sorry to see Sanders rolling over and showing his belly like this. Full disclosure – I don’t agree with him on many issues – but I respected him as an honest guy who called like he saw it. I think the reason he took so long to (grudgingly) endorse Hillary is that he knew, up close and personal, how corrupt and soul-less she is. Her whole pitch has really been reduce to ( to paraphrase ZH):

    Trump is scary. Hillary is not Trump.
    Things really aren’t that bad. She’ll continue on the path we’ve been on.

    Hillary can tart it up with little policy tweaks to the status quo here and there, but that is basically it.
    So much for idealism.

    Really sad. If I were a millenial, I would think twice about ever getting involved in politics again.

    1. Epistrophy

      Bernie did a good job of bringing certain policies (many that I agree with) to the attention of the American people, and in bringing the corruption of the DNC to the attention of the rank and file Democrat.

      Nonetheless, at the risk of being flamed, I don’t think that Bernie ever had any intention to be President. My personal view is that he always intended to support HRC.

      Sadly, he’s effectively cast his most important policies into the deep sea. If HRC is elected, which Bernie fully endorses, TPP will be law before the New Year.

  30. Roger Smith

    Bernie has official joined the chorus of tweet wars, telling Trump to “never tweet”.

    1. MyLessThanPrimeBeef

      Bernie has made Hillary stronger.

      He aims to make her even stronger.

      I don’t think they can blame him for their Nov. 8. loss

        1. Roger Smith

          Thanks! I always have trouble linking to tweets on my phone. Twitter needs to update their interface to make sharing putside Twitter easier (especially with their videos).

  31. kimsarah

    Did Hillary releasing her Wall Street speeches make the (meaningless) Democratic platform?
    By the way, the TV pundits including the morons on pmsnbc are pathetic in trying to find at least one Bernie supporter (of the “90 percent of Bernie supporters who will vote for Hillary” as Big Al Franken claims) who were convinced to make the pivot to Hillary. Good luck!

  32. kimsarah

    Sorry, but making the case to vote against Trump is not strong enough to vote for Hillary. Maybe that tactic will work the other way around.

    1. polecat

      F#ck this Sh!t…..I’m voting for Trump!……..

      Berning down the facade of fecklessness!

      1. PH

        Ok. Put a Trump bumper sticker on your car. Leave it there for four years.

        I will check back at the end of Trump’s term to see how proud you feel,

    1. aab

      It’s not clear what’s going on with that. I believe that went around before Bernie said in his speech “tomorrow night.” But they might not have told him. That would make it a sweet trick, indeed. Rumors are flying that up to a third of his delegates had their credentials yanked. But does it really matter? The superdelegates and Clinton delegates needed to come to their senses. They won’t.

      Apparently, Wikileaks has said there’s a much worse dump coming, possibly by tomorrow, from the Foundation.

      Oh, and the SandersforPresident subreddit was pulled down and nuked, exactly when Sanders delegates might have been relying on it to find out about the roll call problems. I think it’s been put back up temporarily. Not sure if it will stick. Again, the damage is probably done.

  33. makedoanmend

    Studied Indifference.

    The Non-Clinton delegates should stand shoulder to shoulder, as one big bloc, and remain absolutely silent – during the entire convention – remain silent especially when Sanders or Clinton appears. Say nothing to no one. Don’t give any news organisations “sound-bites”…

    …Read books, knit (!), whittle wood, rest, contemplate…then just walk away…and work for a different future post convention.

    Kabuke works in many ways.

  34. ewmayer

    Re. being all courteous and respectful to those by whom one has been blatantly cheated, the following quote comes to my mind:

    “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
    — Frederick Douglass

  35. I Have Strange Dreams

    NOW is the time for the Berners to form a break-away party. Call it the Social Democrats or the Progressive Democrats, whatever. What are people waiting for? Forget about Trump, forget about trying to takeover the rotten carcass of the Dem party – it stinks and is maggot infested.

    1. PH

      This is an idea that has some merit, but it will take a long time to win.

      Why not build that organization as a faction in the Dem party and run primary challengers?

      Add winning progressives faster, and oppose Republican rule.

  36. Malik

    Let’s face it, Bernie gave a hostage speech. And the DNC confiscated signs (anti-TPP) and threatened protesters with expulsion. WTF? That was the last straw for me. Any “unity” displayed at this convention is for the cameras, and “reaffirmed” by the talking heads.

    Another poster here referenced how the DNC silenced Howard Dean after 2008. This will happen again if Hillary wins.

    Many of Bernie supporters will vote Jill Stein. How does that help if Hillary wins?

    1. SpringTexan

      It helps a lot if there are many more third-party votes in this election than ever before.

    2. jrs

      But Hillary IS anti-TPP (so we are told) so why would they want to confiscate signs? If she was really anti-TPP it would be in the platform and the signs would remain, afterall they are merely anti-TPP signs and since both Bernie and Hillary are anti-TPP they aren’t taking a side on Bernie or Hillary as they both agree, right, right?

  37. Malik


    “Well, I mean, that’s interesting. We have seen that with a lot of other publications. I guess there’s a question: What does that mean for the U.S. Democratic Party? It is important for there to be examples of accountability. The resignation was an example of that. Now, of course, Hillary Clinton has tried to immediately produce a counter-example by putting out a statement, within hours, saying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a great friend, and she’s incorporating her into her campaign, she’s going to be pushing for her re-election to the Congress.

    “So that’s a very interesting signaling by Hillary Clinton that if you act in a corrupt way that benefits Hillary Clinton, you will be taken care of. Why does she need to put that out? Certainly, it’s not a signal that helps with the public at all. It’s not a signal that helps with unity at the DNC, at the convention. It’s a signal to Hillary Clinton partisans to keep on going on, you’ll be taken care of. But it’s a very destructive signal for a future presidency, because it’s—effectively, it’s expanding the Overton window of corruption. It doesn’t really matter what you do, how you behave; as long as that is going to benefit Hillary Clinton, you’ll be protected.”

  38. Bring Us Together

    Gee. Winning the youth vote. Five state parties. The DNC is practically ours. Awesome takeover. Next we should take over NAMBLA and get them to fuck adults.

  39. Edward Qubain

    I thought Sanders gave a fairly standard speech. What would have been awesome is if he had gone “off message” and blasted the corruption of both parties, the problems with electronic voting, the bribery of our officials by Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments, the writing of legislation by lobbyists, the lying by the press, Wall Street’s regulatory capture including in the Obama administration, and on and on. It was a lost opportunity. Since the DNC stabbed him in the back he owes them nothing.

    1. nycTerrierist

      I agree. Someone upthread said Bernie gave a ‘hostage speech’. Well put. Very sad and disturbing spectacle.
      The professor at the end of Blue Angel, also apt! a sad denouement to his amazing campaign – which was never about him – but needed him very much not to give up before this convention.
      Now we are witnessing the repulsive victory lap of the Clinton thugs and their enablers. A big middle finger to democracy.

  40. EoinW

    Sanders, Warren, I guess the case is finally closed. The political Left is not capable of bringing change. They’re good at putting on a show for the sake of their conscience, however, in the end they sell out to the same establishment they are suppose to want to reform.

    Farage, Le Pen and Trump might have questionable personalities but it’s turning democracy into a personality contest that has killed western democracies. The only thing that matters now is change. For reform, the reality is that one must look to the Right. Either you want change(voting for Trump) or you want to appease your conscience while living with the status quo(voting for Stein or not at all).

    Be honest with yourselves people. You actually have an opportunity to vote against the establishment and defeat the establishment – something I’ve never had in Canada. Don’t waste it with “holier than thou” leftist excuses. The Left will not deliver change. Not now, nor in 2-4 years time. Why would it suddenly create reformers when, for half a century, it has appeased power and sold out to it?

    A right wing friend told me decades ago that liberals believe in nothing. I didn’t buy it at the time, however after seeing Sanders/Warren it’s pretty solid confirmation he might have been correct. Now does the average Liberal believe enough in change to actually vote for it? Or will the average Liberal also sell out because, perhaps, Liberals don’t believe in anything?

    1. PH

      A vote for Trump will not defeat the Establisment.

      It will give more power to the Republicans who want to roll back what is left of the New Deal and roll back environmental regulations and abortion rights.

      It will make Hillary sad. But the main people to suffer will be ordinary people.

      1. tegnost

        Here you go again acting like ordinary people aren’t suffering right now because of democrat policies. What will hillary do to improve those peoples situation?

    2. jrs

      A few liberal pols are not any kind of left at all, granted America doesn’t have that much of a left but what it does have is not represented by them. Bernie was, it’s true, probably the best of them in DC. Warren is just an ex-Republican.

      The right will not bring the changes the left seeks. It never has historically. The crazed right is probably allowed to exist to a greater degree than anything left is allowed to exist because it’s no real threat to the power of the rich. Trump may or may not be marginally less evil, but the right will not bring the changes the left seeks.

  41. cm

    Not just Facebook & Twitter shenanigans for Hillary, also Reddit’s SandersForPresident subreddit — someone banned for suggesting the best tactical time for booing at the convention.

  42. Jim

    “…in the end they sell out to the same establishment they are supposed to want to reform.”

    That is the necessary adjustment to ” political reality” for Sanders, Warren and before them, Obama both husband and wife.

    And the beat goes on!

  43. Jon Paul

    I think I gave up on Warren last night. How can you grumble about our system being rigged when Hillary just won rigged primaries? Trump should be waiting with a mallet if they ever mention rigged anything.

    Then she spoke about how Hillary will fight Wall St. Really? I guess she’ll push hard to make sure they only take 98% of the pie.

    I fear Trump wins in a landslide.

  44. Paul Hirschman

    Anyone concerned that a Trump victory deepens America’s love affair with Irrationalism? DLC Dems are “crackpot realists,” to use CW Mills’ evocative phrase. But too many of Trump’s supporters have “brown shirt” written all over them. We know that “brown shirts” equals street brawls, murder and mayhem. Are we ready for that? Don’t we stand a better chance of winning the next Occupy Wall Street confrontation if we have an organization behind it? Seems to me a Trump win makes it harder to prepare for the next Occupy fight.

  45. Lord Koos

    “By overwhelmingly winning the youth vote, he has set the agenda for the future of the Democratic Party.”

    I remember when the Democrats won the youth vote back in the early 70s. That didn’t work out that well. All the party leaders have to do is wait until the young voters are old voters, just keep them hanging on for the next 20 years with false promises and political sleight-of-hand. People my age who were once hippy radicals are now Hillary supporters… so it goes. Perhaps this time it will be different, I certainly hope so, as the stakes are much higher now.

    “No matter how cynical I get, I can’t keep up.”

    1. Edward

      If the youth don’t get anywhere in the next 20 years, if they are stuck in a dead end, I don’t think they will morph into status quo Clinton types. They will be alienated. The occupy movement was squashed only to resurface later as the Sander’s revolution. One thing is for sure, American elites now do not think about the future; everything is about today for them.

Comments are closed.